At a glance

  • Regulations relating to immigration reform released
  • Exemptions to a rule to stop job-hopping during first two years of employment outlined
  • Officials say the regulations will protect exploited workers

Government has published regulations relating to its immigration reform legislation, which will come into effect on 1 May, including the rules that will apply to job-hopping.

Under section 64 of the Caymanian Protection Act, if a work-permit holder ceases to work for their employer within their first two years in Cayman, that person must leave for one year before being allowed to come back and take up employment elsewhere.

The Caymanian Protection (Amendment) Regulations, published on 16 April, outline the exemptions to that requirement.

Exemptions

Under the new regulations, a work permit holder may apply to the director of WORC to be exempted under a number of conditions, such as if that worker had been required to work overtime regularly without being paid, or without an agreement that they would not be paid; or if they had been required to do work outside of the scope of their job description, without pay.

Other grounds for exemptions would be if the worker was discriminated against on any of the grounds set out in the Labour Act; had been the victim of retaliation by their employer in response to a complaint or concern made to or about the employer; or had been the victim of sexual, physical or verbal harassment, or bullying.

- Advertisement -

If the position the work permit holder held was made redundant, that would also be considered as a grounds for exemption, according to the regulations.

The worker must apply for an exemption within three working days of ceasing to be employed. That application must be in writing, and include proof of the situation under which they’re applying for the exemption. For example, in the form of an official complaint lodged with the Department of Labour and Pensions, the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service, the Gender Equality Tribunal or any other government agency with investigative powers.

After that, according to the regulations, the director of WORC would notify the worker in writing of whether they will be exempt from having to leave the island within 30 working days of receiving the application.

The revised regulations also put an onus on an employer to notify WORC within seven days that the worker’s employment has ended. An employer who fails to do so would be liable upon conviction to a fine of $20,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both. The existing regulations do not stipulate a deadline for notifying authorities and carry a smaller penalty for failing to do so – a fine of up to $5,000.

Speaking on Radio Cayman’s ‘For the Record’ on Monday morning, 20 April, Wesley Howell, chief officer in the Ministry of Immigration and Caymanian Employment, confirmed that the regulations apply only to non-Caymanian workers on their first work permits during their first two years on island, and that the two-year rule would not apply to subsequent permits.

Financial standing requirements

The amended regulations also cover the financial standing requirements for work-permit holders with dependents in Cayman. For those with one dependant, they would need to earn at least $5,000 a month, up from the current $3,500, and then at least $1,000 more for each additional dependent.

Immigration Minister Michael Myles, also appearing on ‘For The Record’, said, underpaid workers were “overwhelming our infrastructure”, noting that some were availing of food pantries and charity from local churches, and others, without health insurance, were being treated at the public hospital.

Howell added, “It’s no secret that we’re an expensive jurisdiction to live in, particularly when you’re talking about students having to go to private school and so on. So, those numbers better reflect the full cost of having dependents here,” said Howell.

He said the new regulations tackling job hopping, would help protect work permit holders who are being exploited by employers who bring them, in some cases, “halfway round the world”, into Cayman for non-existent jobs.

“They get here and they have to find a new employer to take out a work permit for them, and then they try to work to recoup some of their travelling expenses and other things that they’ve done,” he said. “This now sets a clear and measured approach to saying this process of hopping from one employer to the next within your first year, first three months, first six months, is no longer going to be allowed, which will put a serious damper on that aspect of it.”

Referring to cases of worker exploitation that has been reported, Myles said the Department of Labour and Pensions was investigating those cases.

Howell noted that, regarding the two-year job-hopping rules, concerns had been raised over the practice of some law firms and financial services companies offering 18-month contracts, rather than two-year contracts. In those circumstances, he said, “if an individual has a contract for 18 months and they decide they’re not going to renew with that particular company, and it’s an amicable separation, all that organisation has to do is write to immigration, releasing that person from their work permit, and wishing them a blessing to move to another job, and that suffices.”

Myles concurred with this, saying, for example, if an expat worker is on a one-year contract, and the contract is not renewed, both the employer and the employee would submit documentation to WORC, noting that it was a legal separation and the employee was moving on to a new employer.

Other regulations released by government include the Caymanian Protection (Fees) Regulations; the Caymanian Protection (Temporary Work Permit and Business Visitors’ Permits) (Amendment) Regulations; and the Caymanian Protection (Arrangements of Convenience) Regulations.

2 COMMENTS

  1. Section 64 is going to cause a headache for government in itself. In most cases, any mistreatment of an employee will be a case of one person’s word against another. Who will government side with? Does the employee need to show a burden of proof, and if they don’t have it, would they have to leave island and their settled family for a year? We will undoubtedly also see employers get falsely accused of mistreatment, potentially destroying reputations.

    In any case, Section 64 bears hallmarks of modern slavery. Not to mention it hinders a free-labour market which helps economies to grow. If somebody is unhappy with their current employer, top economic scholars would tell you that should be free to find a one. Competition is healthy for the economy.

    Employers should have a duty to treat and pay their employees well, and extreme cases of mistreatment should not be the only justification to be able to change employers. Like it or not, Cayman’s economy relies heavily on foreign labour and this law is a major setback. Top workers could view Cayman as less appealing due to the risk factor this law brings.

    Most employment contracts in the financial services sector include a repayment clause for relocation expenses in the event that the employee terminates their employment agreement before a certain period (often 1-2 years). This works very well in itself to deter job hopping and eliminates much of the financial risk for the employer.

    The government has not properly thought this out at all and I wouldn’t be surprised to see if go to judicial review or repealed in the near future.

  2. The balance between maintaining labor market stability and allowing flexibility in genuine cases like redundancy or workplace issues seems particularly important. It highlights how immigration policies are evolving to address both employer concerns and worker protection.

    It also underscores how crucial it is for workers to clearly understand their legal rights and available exemptions. In similar contexts, access to proper legal guidancesuch as resources like https://www.solicitor.pk/immigration-lawyer/ can
    make a significant difference in navigating complex immigration rules.